Seriously...I don't give a hoot about any of those previous issues; some affect me, most don't or won't.

But to give ANY one person or entity "control" of the Internet?

THAT'S unacceptable.

I understand the need for cyber-security. I do. Being online nearly 20 hours a day, I know all too well the possibility of a system to become compromised. I know, too, that the Feds, in all areas, are under constant attack from outside sources.

But you secure your own information, NOT give any group, Left or Right or Middle, the ability to shut down private networks without having concrete evidence that said site is malicious.

There's a LOT of things that are run by computers today, and that is one of the reasons why there are so many companies offering services to protect those; traffic lights, water systems, air traffic, power plants. ALL of these are run by computers and are networked somehow and those networks need safeguarding. This was an issue with Bush, and it continues to be an issue with this administration.

But you do not safeguard a system by allowing private networks on the Internet to be shut down, and then give that power to the Feds.

This bill also has bipartisan support. So, tell me all you anti-Big Brother government types who claim these sorts of things only happen with Democrats...where's the Republican outrage over this?

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Don't know a lot about the bill, but I suspect it is similar to the powers given to POTUS, governors and even mayors that can in an emergency, declare martial law and impose strict regulation on the public. The internet is relatively new and has become an important part of our society, so I see this as a step to insure security in an emergency.

Even during hurricanes, martial law is sometimes used either in a city or a state to keep order.

I don't see this as a threat to our civil freedoms, but a necessary step sometimes to ensure our safety. Usually temporary and if some despot tries to use it to control this gang of 300 million US citizens, there will be hell to pay. LOL

after the fact. Rockefeller said "the legislation was critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records." How does shutting down these things protect them?

And the health care bill is critical, and the Cash for Clunkers was critical, and Cap and trade is critical, and bailouts are critical. One day we will wake up and find that our Constitution is no longer critical.

I don't know what is involved with the details of the bill, or what Homeland Security would do if there is a cyberattack. I have to leave that with those reps we elected and the consultants advising them.

I have read fictional books on the possibilities of say a cyberattack on a nuclear generating plant, where the attack would dismantle the safety devices and cause a melt down with a Chernobyl type effect.

Another fictional book was about a cyberattack on a large dam, opening the flood gates, disabling the warning systems and causing a tidal wave of water downstream flooding unsuspecting people to drown.

Another was an attack on the air traffic controller system in a large city airport. No, shutting down the system was not the plot. The plot was to have the computer send mixed signals to the pilots, causing confusion and possible collisions of aircraft full of passengers.

Lots of fictional scenarios for disasters, but are we potentially and really vulnerable? Would the government be negligent in protecting our citizens by not exploring and making recommendations?

Isn't our esteemed leader going to have an all "volunteer" homeland protection army?" You betcha he is and he is working on it now. Wasn't that supposed to be what the National Gurad was supposed to be? Now why do we need people like I sorta remember Hitler and his other cohorts had! Scary.

No, I don't trust the government that much. I'm old enough not to be naive. And I have seen the change from more self reliance in the '40s and '50s to the more dependence on government that is more prominent now. But we do have to have some trust or we wouldn't elect many people.

In reality, all bills going through congress have to go through a zillion committees and most are made up of reps from both major parties and some independents. That process alone will ensure discussions, arguments, revisions and even re-revisions before a bill is presented to congress. Then the process starts again and if all those people vote in a majority, POTUS has to be able to sign it. One of the legacies left by the founding fathers.

Meanwhile the whole process is being monitored by lobbyists of different interests and the media which "analyzes" it for us. By reading the different versions, we might find some truth between the polarized versions.

The fact that many of us don't trust the government is a lot of the debate on the health care.

And we are joined together in our distrust and caution. We need more like us. Helps to keep the politicians more honest.

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.